Also in the news

[Strokes]

13 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Please don't, I need to keep my job 😊

 

Not everything is completely factual coming from the GMB there, there was a 68% turnout, of which 90% did vote for the strike action. The other unions have accepted the terms, but the GMB have been pretty insistent the engineers go out, right from the beginning. 

 

It's been made very clear to us that the company will be in real trouble if we don't modernise, and we don't need to be too bright to see it for ourselves. 

 

Unfortunately too much has carried over from when we were nationalised, and it's just not sustainable. 

 

I need to keep my job, and so do my colleagues, even if I do now only get 25 days instead of 28 days paid annual leave 

It’s the way they have gone about it Debs that causes concern. 
There are far more diplomatic ways of renegotiating contracts than firing and rehiring. It stinks.

Centrica knew these contracts existed when they purchased BG and it’s doesn’t seem right to me they can just tear them up because of mismanagement. 
The people I’ve spoken too are devastated and feel massively let down.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/08/centrica-boss-got-44-pay-rise-amid-job-cuts

 

It’s the workers at the bottom bearing the brunt, not the MDs again.

Sorry but I’ll be changing providers and I hope others do too.

[StanSP]

Missing flight near Indonesia

 

 

 

[Facecloth]

9 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Missing flight near Indonesia

 

 

 

Is 2021 just going to be like a greatest hits of previous years bad news?

[FoxesDeb]

Centrica didn't buy British Gas, they were a company formed when we were privatised. Of course some of the different contracts existed then, it was in 1997 though and the world, and the market, has changed immeasurably since then. 

 

Why should engineers not be expected to travel to their first job in their own time? If I live in Wigston and work in Enderby and start at 9am, I'm expected to be in the office at 9am ready to start work, not leaving my house at 9am. Why should they be treated differently from me? If you start charging a customer for your time from 8am are you there working at 8am, or just leaving your house? That's one of the reasons they are striking, because they want to be able to travel while they are being paid. You can argue that it's always been that way, but it doesn't mean it's sustainable. 

 

My new contract was negotiated, by a different union. Weeks of negotiations took place, and much of what the company originally proposed was withdrawn as a result of these negotiations. They didn't need to fire and rehire us as we chose to accept the new terms and conditions. Because I want to keep my job. It was made very clear right from the start that fire and rehire was an absolute last resort, it has never been on the table for me. 

 

At the end of the day, I'd feel a hell of a lot more let down if we just continued running the way we are until the business folds and my job goes with it. 

 

Whether or not I agree the problems have been caused by poor management is neither here nor there, really, ultimately the workers at the bottom need to keep our jobs. If that means I lose a couple of benefits which many people elsewhere don't receive from their company, then so be it. We're all paid above the market rate anyway from what I understand. 

 

 

[Jon the Hat]

A very sensible viewpoint Deb, it’s a reality that most businesses can’t sustain higher costs than their competitors forever.

[Collymore]

26 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Missing flight near Indonesia

 

 

 

That is Boeing finished right there. The company is cursed. 

[Wymsey]

Apparently it lost 3,000 meters in altitude in less than a minute.

Sounds like a crash..

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Apparently it lost 3,000 meters in altitude in less than a minute.

Sounds like a crash..

 

The last part of that graph does not make for good reading at all.

[Ian Nacho]

Any plane with 737 in it is finished. 

[Stevosevic]

Almost as if the engines shut off and it just plummeted?

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Stevosevic said:

Almost as if the engines shut off and it just plummeted?

The data suggests freefall, yeah.

 

But engine failure by itself wouldn't cause such a freefall - such a plane would still be able to glide, at least for a while in the hands of any trained airline transport pilot.

 

I guess we'll find out in due course but if this data is correct and there was a freefall there has been a catastrophic failure of multiple systems here.

[Stevosevic]

 

Terrible

 

[Strokes]

20 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Centrica didn't buy British Gas, they were a company formed when we were privatised. Of course some of the different contracts existed then, it was in 1997 though and the world, and the market, has changed immeasurably since then. 

 

Why should engineers not be expected to travel to their first job in their own time? If I live in Wigston and work in Enderby and start at 9am, I'm expected to be in the office at 9am ready to start work, not leaving my house at 9am. Why should they be treated differently from me? If you start charging a customer for your time from 8am are you there working at 8am, or just leaving your house? That's one of the reasons they are striking, because they want to be able to travel while they are being paid. You can argue that it's always been that way, but it doesn't mean it's sustainable. 

 

In our industry door to door travel is acceptable. You’re going to the same site every day, engineers travel can vary from 30 minutes to 2 hours. Why should they not be paid for that inconvenience? If BG wanted to be fair and make sure terms were exact of office staff, they could always say start at 8 at the hub and be back at 4:30. But that would impact productivity, it’s a cake and eat it scenario.

 

20 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

 

My new contract was negotiated, by a different union. Weeks of negotiations took place, and much of what the company originally proposed was withdrawn as a result of these negotiations. They didn't need to fire and rehire us as we chose to accept the new terms and conditions. Because I want to keep my job. It was made very clear right from the start that fire and rehire was an absolute last resort, it has never been on the table for me. 

 

That’s great for you if you’re happy to get less for the same job but many are not.

Make them redundant and pay them their dues for their service, hire and retrain new staff on the contracts you want.

20 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

 

At the end of the day, I'd feel a hell of a lot more let down if we just continued running the way we are until the business folds and my job goes with it. 

 

Sure, but this could have been addressed earlier and a more pragmatic and staged approach could have come about.

It reeks of opportunism to me.

 

20 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Whether or not I agree the problems have been caused by poor management is neither here nor there, really, ultimately the workers at the bottom need to keep our jobs. If that means I lose a couple of benefits which many people elsewhere don't receive from their company, then so be it. We're all paid above the market rate anyway from what I understand. 

 

Like I said, I’m not against modernisation and the company needs to be competitive to survive. 
Fire and Rehire is an abhorrent practice and should be against the law.

[Guest SO1]

53 minutes ago, Collymore said:

That is Boeing finished right there. The company is cursed. 

They deserve it for what they did. There should be company leadership in prison for their willful incompetence or "anything for a buck" mentality.

[Collymore]

3 minutes ago, SO1 said:

They deserve it for what they did. There should be company leadership in prison for their willful incompetence or "anything for a buck" mentality.

Yes awful luck and corruptly run. Not a good mix. 

 

[Ian Nacho]

11 minutes ago, Stevosevic said:

 

Terrible

 

It’s wrong to speculate (I’m doing it anyway) but it does seem very 737 Max esque. 

[Collymore]

12 minutes ago, Stevosevic said:

 

Terrible

 

If anything that gives hope as to lose that much altitude in that time span means it would have vertically dived at about 4000mph which is obviously impossible. At least we can say that data is incorrect. 

 

Still doesn't look good mind. 

[Collymore]

Also, regarding the missing plane, it worried me a little thinking of all of these unused planes sitting around gathering dust in the pandemic. I'm sure it's different to your car, but we've all probably experienced leaving a car too long and it never runs well afterwards. 

 

I'm sure they have rigorous checks before they will fly again but I'm sure they're not designed to be sat around. Also where are they parked? All in hangars? Can't imagine they'd be indoor room for the thousands of planes that aren't being used... 

 

Don't they normally fly them to warm dry places when they're being stored for a long time? 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if something gets linked to maintenance and storage from this... 

[FoxesDeb]

14 minutes ago, Strokes said:

In our industry door to door travel is acceptable. You’re going to the same site every day, engineers travel can vary from 30 minutes to 2 hours. Why should they not be paid for that inconvenience? If BG wanted to be fair and make sure terms were exact of office staff, they could always say start at 8 at the hub and be back at 4:30. But that would impact productivity, it’s a cake and eat it scenario.

 

That’s great for you if you’re happy to get less for the same job but many are not.

Make them redundant and pay them their dues for their service, hire and retrain new staff on the contracts you want.

Sure, but this could have been addressed earlier and a more pragmatic and staged approach could have come about.

It reeks of opportunism to me.

 

Like I said, I’m not against modernisation and the company needs to be competitive to survive. 
Fire and Rehire is an abhorrent practice and should be against the law.

The start at the hub at 8am and be back at the end of the shift is exactly what the company is asking them to do in the new terms and conditions. They will also be paid for any extra travel over 30 minutes. 

 

I don't know how long the company can be expected to keep negotiating without saying enough is enough? As far as I understand it, the GMB were the ones who walked out of the talks, other unions continued and got us to where the rest of us are. 

 

I think if you are making people redundant you need to show the role is no longer needed don't you? And offer redeployment within the company? 

 

Fire and rehire without any negotiation whatsoever would be shit, I agree. But if we as a business want to keep going we need to be reasonable about our employees terms and conditions, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with people being asked to realign with their colleagues doing exactly the same role for the same salary and with the same benefits. 

 

As employees we've all been privy to the figures and the justifications, and I don't think we really have a choice if we want to keep our jobs for the future. After all, what is the point of keeping our existing contracts if the company folds? They won't be any use to us then. 

[The Syrup]

1 hour ago, FoxesDeb said:

Centrica didn't buy British Gas, they were a company formed when we were privatised. Of course some of the different contracts existed then, it was in 1997 though and the world, and the market, has changed immeasurably since then. 

 

Why should engineers not be expected to travel to their first job in their own time? If I live in Wigston and work in Enderby and start at 9am, I'm expected to be in the office at 9am ready to start work, not leaving my house at 9am. Why should they be treated differently from me? If you start charging a customer for your time from 8am are you there working at 8am, or just leaving your house? That's one of the reasons they are striking, because they want to be able to travel while they are being paid. You can argue that it's always been that way, but it doesn't mean it's sustainable. 

 

My new contract was negotiated, by a different union. Weeks of negotiations took place, and much of what the company originally proposed was withdrawn as a result of these negotiations. They didn't need to fire and rehire us as we chose to accept the new terms and conditions. Because I want to keep my job. It was made very clear right from the start that fire and rehire was an absolute last resort, it has never been on the table for me. 

 

At the end of the day, I'd feel a hell of a lot more let down if we just continued running the way we are until the business folds and my job goes with it. 

 

Whether or not I agree the problems have been caused by poor management is neither here nor there, really, ultimately the workers at the bottom need to keep our jobs. If that means I lose a couple of benefits which many people elsewhere don't receive from their company, then so be it. We're all paid above the market rate anyway from what I understand. 

 

 

I've worked as a field service engineer (not BG though) for almost 25 years and travel time to and from jobs has always been included in my working day. Im based at home though and my location can be tracked anyway so anyone taking the mick can be found out. My first job could have been 5 minutes or 5 hours away. Once I'm in a company vehicle travelling for work purposes I'm getting paid.

[FoxesDeb]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

In our industry door to door travel is acceptable. You’re going to the same site every day, engineers travel can vary from 30 minutes to 2 hours. Why should they not be paid for that inconvenience? If BG wanted to be fair and make sure terms were exact of office staff, they could always say start at 8 at the hub and be back at 4:30. But that would impact productivity, it’s a cake and eat it scenario.

 

That’s great for you if you’re happy to get less for the same job but many are not.

Make them redundant and pay them their dues for their service, hire and retrain new staff on the contracts you want.

Sure, but this could have been addressed earlier and a more pragmatic and staged approach could have come about.

It reeks of opportunism to me.

 

Like I said, I’m not against modernisation and the company needs to be competitive to survive. 
Fire and Rehire is an abhorrent practice and should be against the law.

To add some more clarity, hundreds of employees stand to benefit from the new T&C's as well, but that isn't being reported in the media. Many people who are on lower salaries than others are having their salaries uplifted to align, and hundreds who have fewer than 25 days annual leave are having theirs increased. That hasn't made the news though.

 

Lets say my contract gives me a salary of £25k, with 28 days annual leave, and Jim has since been employed in a different area of the business but doing a similar role on a contract which pays £18k, and gives him 20 days salary. My salary remains the same, as does everyone's, nobody is being asked to take a pay cut. I lose 3 days holiday and Jim gains 5 days. Jim also gets a £7k pay rise.  We are therefore being rewarded similarly, for doing similar work, and I think that's pretty fair. The people complaining will obviously be the ones who stand to lose out, but what about the ones who stand to gain? 

 

[Danno]

Why do all these crashes seem to happen in Indonesia and Pakistan? Is it just shit regulations? 

[SpacedX]

20 hours ago, Ian Nacho said:

It’s wrong to speculate (I’m doing it anyway) but it does seem very 737 Max esque. 

It does bear a strong resemblance to the Lion Air tragedy in 2018, but the aircraft involved was a 737-500, the Max is still grounded. 

 

21 hours ago, Collymore said:

That is Boeing finished right there. The company is cursed. 

Any idea how many 737s are in the air at any one time? The 737 series is the world's most used commercial aircraft. More knee jerk reaction and internet sensationalism. Wait until the results and findings of the investigation. The aircraft was 26 years old and operated by Sriwijaya Air - as Leicsmac says, it sounds like catastrophic failure to me, for example, a component shearing on one of the horizontal stabilisers could plunge the airfcraft into an irrecoverable vertical dive - we simply don't know. One of the first things that will be examined at the airline is their maintenance logs. 

 

20 hours ago, Collymore said:

If anything that gives hope as to lose that much altitude in that time span means it would have vertically dived at about 4000mph which is obviously impossible. At least we can say that data is incorrect. 

 

??? The aircraft reportedly lost 10,725 feet, (that's a distance  of approximately 2.3 miles), in a minute. Fight radar 24 isn't representing real time to impact, merely the point of data cut off. If the plane goes down, the ADS-B transponder telemetry may immediately cease.  

 

Another possibility, aside from catastrophic systems or structural failure is an aerodynamic stall, in which case it could be pilot error. We simply don't know. 

[Collymore]

13 minutes ago, Line-X said:

It does bear a strong resemblance to the Lion Air tragedy in 2018, but the aircraft involved was a 737-500, the Max is still grounded. 

 

Any idea how many 737s are in the air at any one time? The 737 series is the world's most used commercial aircraft. More knee jerk reaction and internet sensationalism. Wait until the results and findings of the investigation. The aircraft was 26 years old and operated by Sriwijaya Air - as Leicsmac says, it sounds like catastrophic failure to me, for example, a component shearing on one of the horizontal stabilisers could plunge the airfcraft into an irrecoverable vertical dive - we simply don't know. One of the first things that will be examined at the airline is their maintenance logs. 

 

??? The aircraft reportedly lost 10,725 feet, (that's a distance  of approximately 2.3 miles), in a minute. Fight radar 24 isn't representing real time to impact, merely the point of data cut off. If the plane goes down, the ADS-B transponder telemetry may immediately cease.  

 

Another possibility, aside from catastrophic systems or structural failure is an aerodynamic stall, in which case it could be pilot error. We simply don't know. 

Yeah at the time I had only seen that tweet and thought it was real time data of the plane losing altitude in a few seconds, naive of me really. 

 

 

Knee jerk reaction and sensationalism? 

Sorry, whether you like it or not, Boeing are finished in their current form, they simply couldn't afford any more accidents no matter the circumstance or who's to blame, if anybody. I think there will be either rebranding or some sort of major change going forward. 

 

 

 

 

[SpacedX]

3 minutes ago, Collymore said:

Yeah at the time I had only seen that tweet and thought it was real time data of the plane losing altitude in a few seconds, naive of me really. 

 

 

Knee jerk reaction and sensationalism? 

Sorry, whether you like it or not, Boeing are finished in their current form, they simply couldn't afford any more accidents no matter the circumstance or who's to blame, if anybody. I think there will be either rebranding or some sort of major change going forward. 

 

 

 

 

I would contend that Boeing are simply too big to be "finished" and have their fingers in many (apple) pies and there remains substantial vested interests and lobbying over defence contracts in Washington. We await to see the stance that the Biden administration will take upon public funding of the space programme but as this has always involved private tender - and increasingly so, Boeing will continue to be major players, To reiterate, this aircraft was 26 years old and we have yet to establish the cause. To simply exclaim on the back of this tragedy "that's Boeing finished right there" is as hyperbolic and reactionary as it is speculative and actually, in comparison, your misconception over the transponder data was not necessarily the "naive" observation.